The plans as a whole are not sound:

Traffic:
Knebworth already suffers from congestion and insufficient parking provision, leading to commuter parking in the residential areas near to the station and potentially dangerous congestion in the high street. These proposals would exacerbate the above problems and also lead to increased access traffic through residential areas such as Gypsy Lane, Stockens Green and Deards End Lane, none of which are suitable for use as through roads: Deards End Lane and Gypsy Lane are single track roads constrained by rail bridges which would have to be widened to permit greater access whilst Deards End Lane and Stockens Green are conservation areas.

A1
The proximity of the proposed development to the A1 is problematic. Noise and air pollution would be significant, the impact of which could only become worse as traffic levels increase. The proposals run contrary to the Environmental Audit Committee's aspiration that Councils should ensure that they "prioritise air quality in planning decisions" .

Green Belt :
The developments encroach upon significant elements of Green Belt which is contrary to national policy.

Sewerage:
The plan as a whole could exceed the constraints imposed by the current capacity of the sewerage system serving the area. This constraint led to previous plans for development to be abandoned and is not addressed in the current plan

Public Services
There is no commitment - only suggestions- to provide public services which will cope with an overall increase of 31% in the size of the village. Medical services, schools and access will all be affected and cannot be considered beyond the scope of plans of this scale.

The plans are not justified:
- No justification or consideration is given to the economic impact of the plans on the village e.g without increased local employment impacts on roads and railway are likely to be exacerbated
- the plan provides for a disproportionate rate of growth in Knebworth vis-à-vis other parts of North Hertfordshire which does not seem equitable
-the plans require removal of green belt land without any other justification than construction of housing
- benefits which the plan could provide - eg. improved medical services; greater access to school of choice, particularly secondary; stimulation of local businesses and increased employment opportunities; rail station development alongside improved services - are either ignored or given token consideration